
Trump's big, beautiful Bill means massive, ugly tax cuts for American aristocrats
Yet, while it might be good news for the luxury yacht industry, it will leave an estimated 12 million without health insurance through cuts to the Medicaid programme. Trump's ability to pass such ugly legislation through a tightly divided Congress reflects his political power, and yet it could well lead to his undoing in the 2026 mid-term elections.
The more the Republican Party changes, the more it stays the same. For all the talk about the party appealing to the working class, it remains fundamentally committed to a regressive agenda that puts the interests of the very rich above those of ordinary Americans and future generations.
This legislation is ripped straight from the playbook of Ronald Reagan. Reagan reduced the tax rate on the highest earners from 70 per cent to 28 per cent, inaugurating a new era of massive upward redistribution of wealth. He did so by slashing programmes benefiting the poorest Americans: child nutrition, housing assistance and payments to single mothers.
READ MORE
Trump's Bill also resembles Reagan's agenda in another respect: it is as irresponsible as it is cruel. The most expensive social welfare programmes in the US – social security (old age pensions) and Medicare (health insurance for those over the age of 65) – are too popular to cut.
Trump, like Reagan has also increased the budget for the major area of American spending: the military. Reagan justified his cuts with the fantasy of supply-side economics, claiming that slashing taxes would generate so much economic growth that it would actually result in increased government revenue. Republicans today justify their irresponsible spending with the accounting trick that, because they only extended tax cuts due to expire, they aren't really adding to the deficit.
When Reagan left office, the federal debt had tripled. Trump's Bill is set to increase the federal deficit by more than $3 trillion.
Trump's Bill was not much loved by many of the Republicans who voted for it. Deficit hawks worried about adding to the national debt; they like the tax cuts, but would have preferred more social spending cuts to finance them. Elon Musk's criticism of the Bill on these grounds led to his public falling out with Trump.
Moderate Republicans, meanwhile, worried that cuts to Medicaid would hurt the party's chances in 2026. Thom Tillis,
one of only three Republican Senators to vote against the bill
, wondered how he could face his voters 'when President Trump breaks his promise by pushing them off of Medicaid because the funding's not there anymore'.
Trump's ability to pass such legislation reflected his considerable political muscle. He could only afford to lose three out of 53 Republican votes in the Senate (he lost three, with vice-president Vance breaking a 50-50 tie) and, even more challenging, only three of 219 Republican votes in the House of Representatives (he lost only two).
Trump held his party together by threatening Republicans who voted against the Bill that he would support primary challengers against them. For decades, the Republican Party has been distorted by the fact that most of its politicians are elected from heavily Republican districts or states. As a result, the threat to their re-election lies in primary challenges from the right rather than in winning the general election against a Democrat.
Yet Trump was able to exploit this fact like no previous leader. His personal hold on the party means that his endorsement of a primary candidate all but ensures their success.
Yet the thing about being at the pinnacle of your power is that everything is downhill from there. The passage of Trump's beautiful Bill may well lead to an ugly Republican defeat at the polls in 2026. Polling shows that only 29 per cent of Americans support it.
It seems likely that Republicans will lose their slim majority in the House of Representatives. But it also seems possible that Democrats might re-take the Senate, even though they face a very challenging map there.
Tillis, after voting against Trump's bill, announced that he would not seek re-election rather than face a primary challenge. The forced retirement of a popular incumbent increases the chances that Democrats can win his vacated seat in North Carolina.
This bill is so extreme and irresponsible that it will enable Democrats to win back moderate voters in contested electoral districts. But perhaps more importantly it will enable them to make the case that Bernie Sanders and others have been pushing: that whatever they say, the Republicans are the party of the billionaires, and the Democrats can be the party of working Americans.
Still, the massive federal deficit the Bill creates has planted a ticking time bomb for Democrats. If, and when, they do regain control of the federal government, they will be hampered in pursuing an ambitious agenda because they will be forced first to clean up the Republicans' mess. That, too, is part of a pattern in American politics evident since the Reagan era.
How can Republicans retain popularity when their agenda so clearly favours the few at the expense of the many?
As they have done since Reagan, they will double down on culture war politics to distract from their economic agenda. Expect to see ramped up assaults on trans rights and racialised attacks on migrants. Republicans will promote misinformation so that Americans don't realise what they're really doing.
And, finally, if push comes to shove, Trump may employ authoritarian measures to retain his hold on power. Even so, the biggest legacy of Trump's big, beautiful Bill might be that it shatters Republicans' credibility as the party of working Americans.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


RTÉ News
an hour ago
- RTÉ News
US government sues California over egg prices
US president Donald Trump's administration has sued California over its regulation of eggs and chicken farms, saying that the state's anti-animal cruelty laws created "unnecessary red tape" that had raised egg prices throughout the US. The lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles federal court, argues that the federal Egg Products Inspection Act of 1970 pre-empts state laws related to eggs. The federal law authorises the US Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services to regulate eggs in order to protect consumers' health and welfare, and it also requires "national uniformity" in egg safety standards, according to the Trump administration's lawsuit. The California attorney general's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Since the federal law's enactment, California has passed several laws to regulate eggs and chicken farms, including voter initiatives passed in 2008 and 2018 that prevent farmers from packing chickens together so tightly that a hen is unable to "lie down, stand up, fully extend its limbs, and turn around freely." Those state laws aimed to reduce both animal cruelty and the risk of foodborne illness, but the US government said in its lawsuit that only the federal government can regulate egg safety. California can regulate chicken farms within the state, but it cannot impose additional requirements on eggs from other states that are sold within California, according to the lawsuit. The California voter initiatives have survived previous challenges from farmers and other states. Six states – Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Alabama, Kentucky and Iowa – sued California over its egg regulations in 2014. The states who sued also argued that the federal law preempted California's laws, and they lost in both a federal district court and the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals. The US Supreme Court in 2023 preserved one of the California voter initiatives, which was challenged in a lawsuit by pig farmers. The pig farmers had argued that California's 2018 ballot measure, which creates minimum space requirements for pigs and cows as well as chickens, impermissibly regulated out-of-state farmers.


Irish Times
an hour ago
- Irish Times
Trump pledges 50% tariffs against Brazil, citing ‘witch hunt' against Bolsonaro
US president Donald Trump has said he plans to impose a 50 per cent tariff on all Brazilian imports, partly in retaliation for what he sees as a 'witch hunt' against his political ally, former president Jair Bolsonaro , who is facing trial for attempting a coup. In a letter to Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Mr Trump wrote that the new tariffs would take effect August 1st. 'The way that Brazil has treated former President Bolsonaro, a Highly Respected Leader throughout the World during his Term, including by the United States, is an international disgrace.' In his letter, Mr Trump said the 50 per cent tariff was needed to 'have the Level Playing Field we must have with your Country' and 'to rectify the grave injustices of the current regime.' READ MORE He also incorrectly said that the United States had a trade deficit with Brazil. For years, the United States has generally maintained a trade surplus with Brazil, including a $650 million surplus in the first three months of 2025, on $20 billion in trade between the two nations, according to the American Chamber of Commerce for Brazil. Mr Trump wrote that the tariffs were also in response to 'SECRET and UNLAWFUL Censorship Orders to US Social Media platforms' and that he had ordered US officials to open a trade investigation into Brazil for 'continued attacks on the Digital Trade activities of American Companies.' Justice Alexandre de Moraes, the Brazilian supreme court justice who is overseeing the case against Mr Bolsonaro, has ordered tech companies to take down hundreds of accounts that he said threatened Brazil's democracy. His moves have made him a top target of the right in Brazil and the United States. On Monday, Mr Trump publicly criticised the criminal case against Mr Bolsonaro, which focuses on the former president's attempts to hold on to power after losing Brazil's 2022 election. [ EU and US on brink of tariff deal to avoid trade war Opens in new window ] Mr Lula quickly fired back. 'I think it's very wrong and very irresponsible for a president to be threatening others on social media,' the Brazilian president told reporters Monday. 'People have to learn that respect is a good thing.' He added about Mr Trump: 'He needs to know that the world has changed. We don't want an emperor.' Brazil's supreme court is widely expected to convict Mr Bolsonaro later this year, potentially leading to prison time. In January, Mr Bolsonaro said he hoped Mr Trump would come to his aid, though he did not clarify how. After he lost the 2022 election, Mr Bolsonaro questioned the results — despite a review from Brazil's military that supported them — and looked to Brazil's Constitution to find ways to prevent Mr Lula from taking office. That included meeting with military commanders about taking control of the government, which the majority of them refused to do. - New York Times 2025 The New York Times Company


Irish Independent
2 hours ago
- Irish Independent
Marc Champion: Peace is Benjamin Netanyahu's to give, now Donald Trump must persuade him
Set aside, if you can, the jaw-dropping spectacle of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu handing a Nobel prize nomination to Donald Trump over dinner Monday night.